The PWR Self-Study
narrative that has kept us occupied for much of this year will
be submitted to the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policies
(C-USP) on May 18; by the time this issue of the Newsletter appears
we will have met with the committee to answer their questions
about the state and direction of the Program. Next year will see
the appointment of an external review committee, which will use
the Self-Study as a starting point for their assessment of PWR.
Eventually, the Faculty Senate will receive the final report of
the PWR University Review Committee and will take action to renew
or amend the Program.

At this point in the process, as another academic year comes to
a close, we’d like once again to highlight the core of PWR’s
mission: to support the development of Stanford undergraduates
as writers, researchers, and presenters from their first day on
campus through graduation. This support takes varied forms, which
the Self-Study narrative describes in detail: first- and second-year
courses delivered by a highly-experienced and dedicated instructional
staff; tutorials and workshops through the Hume Writing Center
for students in PWR, IHUM, WIM, and other courses; advising and
consultations for advanced undergrads working on senior theses
and Honors projects; and a panoply of writing-related readings
and events that illuminate the range of what constitutes writing
on campus and in the wider culture. The story we told lays out
the myriad ways PWR engages students about their writing and research,
their Med School applications and grant proposals, their spoken
word pieces and songs. Despite the rigors of compiling the data
and crafting the report, the process was a welcome opportunity
to take stock of where we are and where we’d like to go.

What has this period of purposeful reflection shown us? We know
that students generally judge their experience with PWR to be
a positive one. The survey, responded to by over 1700 students,
demonstrated clearly that students don’t “hate PWR.”
Roughly 80% of students rated their PWR 1 course as beneficial
to their development as writers, researchers, and revisers. In
PWR 2 roughly the same percentage appreciated how the course developed
their skills as presenters and users of multimedia to support
their arguments. Students cited individual conferences as a key
component in their PWR experience, pointing to the specific feedback
on their drafts as making substantive revision work possible.
In evaluating the Hume Writing Center, students consistently lauded
the opportunities to interact with tutors about their own writing;
our colleagues in IHUM and other programs show their appreciation
for what we offer by bringing their students to the Center for
workshops focused on writing; and the readings and other special
events hosted by the Center stand out as highlights of each year.
While our accomplishments are a source of pride, the data also
point to challenges yet to be met and the need for specific plans
for improvement. Students request consistent workload across PWR
sections. We don’t take this to mean that students want
absolute uniformity in each class, but rather that they want the
overall requirements of each section to be roughly the same—there
should not be “easy” or “hard” PWR sections.
Students also desire a clear progression of course goals as they
move from PWR 1 to PWR 2. While they appreciate the focus on oral
presentations in PWR 2, they wonder why we continue to require
writing and research. They also want the projects in PWR 2 to
link more closely to their majors and to writing in contexts beyond
the campus. Finally, students raise issues about the length of
PWR classes. As we look forward to next year, we will think carefully
about all of these issues. Program responses might include joining
the Stanford Syllabus Project, so students can review course outlines
and assignments before enrolling in a section, and using the Open
Houses before winter and spring quarters to articulate more clearly
the common elements across all sections.

Preparing this Self Study has been the work of many hands, with
many thanks to go around. We are especially grateful for Alyssa
O’Brien’s leadership (and persistence!) as Chair of
the Program Review Committee, which also included committee liaisons
Carolyn Ross, John Tinker, Wendy Goldberg, Jonathan Hunt, Mark
Feldman, Kimberly Moekle, Donna Hunter, Sohui Lee, and Chris Alfano;
to Alicia Simmons, Kristen Backor, and Curtiss Cobb of the Sociology
Department for their excellent work on the surveys and focus groups;
to Clyde Moneyhun and Claude Reichard for their work on the Writing
Center and Writing in the Major section; to Allison Carruth for
her help in putting together the massive appendices for the narrative;
and to the Undergraduate Advisory Board, who worked tirelessly
to pilot the surveys and gather additional data. But the Study
could not have been completed without the participation and contributions
of all members of the Program community, so we close by offering
a big thank you to everyone.